Which makes more SENSE to you? Heaven/Hell or Reincarnation? (quote, exist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not really, CB. My experience of the Oneness was unambiguous and unmistakable. There is no "duality". But the Oneness has a "multiplicity beyond description" as it is comprised of the multitude of "individuals" born from it. My experience seems to dispute the rishis who came before me but it is my best guide, IMO.
The rishis assert the Oneness as the only possibility in systematic, well reasoned arguments, debated with those that held divergent views, and all those debates are also well preserved for anyone to study. There are those, also respected and revered, within the Vedantic system who hold a dualist view as well, which then leads to heaven and hell, rewards and punishment, a creator God.
My sensibilities do not lead me on that path. Non-duality is the only truth for me. It is not an experience, as one cannot trust experience. It is self inquiry and reasoning alone that leads logically to Advaita.
The rishis assert the Oneness as the only possibility in systematic, well reasoned arguments, debated with those that held divergent views, and all those debates are also well preserved for anyone to study. There are those, also respected and revered, within the Vedantic system who hold a dualist view as well, which then leads to heaven and hell, rewards and punishment, a creator God.
My sensibilities do not lead me on that path. Non-duality is the only truth for me. It is not an experience, as one cannot trust experience. It is self-inquiry and reasoning alone that leads logically to Advaita.
A dualist view does not mandate a heaven and hell, reward/punishment scenario. That is a non sequitur. But my view is not dualist. I have read the reasoning of the rishis and disagree with it. I DO trust my experience as it was unmistakable, but I can understand your skepticism. It is difficult even to imagine such multiplicity in Oneness which is probably why "God's ways are not our ways." We do not need to agree, CB, since it will all be clear eventually anyway. It is not as if what we believe or do not believe can alter anything about Reality in the final analysis.
A dualist view does not mandate a heaven and hell, reward/punishment scenario. That is a non sequitur. But my view is not dualist. I have read the reasoning of the rishis and disagree with it. I DO trust my experience as it was unmistakable, but I can understand your skepticism. It is difficult even to imagine such multiplicity in Oneness which is probably why "God's ways are not our ways." We do not need to agree, CB, since it will all be clear eventually anyway. It is not as if what we believe or do not believe can alter anything about Reality in the final analysis.
Agree with your last sentence. I do not doubt that you experienced what you did, Mystic. Oneness is not experienced because it exists. It is like saying I experience air so it exists. It exists regardless. The experience is a reflection of what Brhman is, as atma within us. It is a momentary glimpse.
I am curious as to what of the texts that make up the Advaita tradition that you disagree with. There is no persuasion to believe anything. It is to be understood without any doubt.
Dualist view means a creator and the created. Oneness is when the creator and created are the same, no distance at all. The dualist relationship is God and mortals. But we are not mortals, we are not our body. We are the eternal substance same as Brhman.
God calls His children to never condemn people and enemies to hell, but to pray blessing of God for the enemies as God does not any people to go into hell
Agree with your last sentence. I do not doubt that you experienced what you did, Mystic. Oneness is not experienced because it exists. It is like saying I experience air so it exists. It exists regardless. The experience is a reflection of what Brhman is, as atma within us. It is a momentary glimpse.
I am curious as to what of the texts that make up the Advaita tradition that you disagree with. There is no persuasion to believe anything. It is to be understood without any doubt.
Dualist view means a creator and the created. Oneness is when the creator and created are the same, no distance at all. The dualist relationship is God and mortals. But we are not mortals, we are not our body. We are the eternal substance same as Brhman.
As I said,I am not a dualist. I agree with the Oneness understanding EXCEPT for the irrational "unchanging" nonsense. It is LIFE ITSELF and living is automatically changing. Its' LIFE TIMEis what accounts for the creative advance of our Reality (which is just the basis for our illusionary "measured time"). As Augustine said, God did not create our Reality IN TIME, He created it WITH TIME (Brhman's very own ETERNAL LIFE).
Last edited by MysticPhD; 02-12-2023 at 12:13 PM..
That being said and I think this is my final opinion while both are probable, reincarnation makes more sense.
Actually, no, and neither makes sense.
Reincarnation is predicated on the existence of a soul, but the concept of a soul was concocted by Greeks who --through no fault of their own -- were unaware of the existence of biological cells. In fact, no one knew of their existence until the year 1607.
Since the Greeks had no idea biological cells existed, they could not possibly have fathomed the idea that the brain consists of Billions of specialized cells interacting through chemistry which is what gives rise to consciousness.
Because the Greeks did not know that, the only way they could explain consciousness was by concocting the idea that we are inhabited by a soul.
Note that the concept of the soul is absent from all religious texts prior to that time, and, why, yes, that includes the Hebrew texts.
Christianity, and the Bible, teaches resurrection. Resurrection and reincarnation are mutually exclusive and incompatible because (in Jewish thought) resurrection referred to physical resurrection - a standing up again of the body. If reincarnation were true, then which of the x number of reincarnations of a specific person would get resurrected? In reincarnation the same soul gets reincarnated into different bodies. The same soul could not be resurrected into each of the reincarnations of that person. To do so would require either a division or a multiplication of the soul so that the same soul could somehow reside in each of the reincarnated bodies that in the end would all be resurrected.
While resurrection was a late development in Jewish thought, one of the factors that gave rise to the concept of resurrection was that since God is just, in order to be fair, in view of the unjust adversities the Jews were going though, God would have to resurrect the Jews in order to set right the wrongs they had endured. From there the concept of resurrection developed.
The Jewish answer to the unfair things in this life then was resurrection . . .not reincarnation. Of course, not all Jews, the Sadducees for example, believed in resurrection or even life after death.
The disciples of Jesus, and a former enemy of Jesus - Paul, truly believed they saw the risen Jesus, physically resurrected after having been crucified.
The original poster is looking for answers and you only give him mythology, that's not helping any.
I’ve had a “fundie” experience in my lifetime so I’m not exactly dumb on The Bible and basics of Christianity.
I will admit though I’m fuzzy on the other Major ones when it comes to what they preach about the afterlife.
That being said and I think this is my final opinion while both are probable, reincarnation makes more sense.
I mean if nothing else, don’t we if we are buried or ashes scattered etc come back as plants if nothing else because plants are living organisms anyway? Not trying to be funny here.
To only have 1 shot at life just seems too extreme. Like if one dies because of murder or a horrible cancer, it just seems like an unfair way to go out of your possibly 1 shot at life.
Or again if you went out (died) in a horrible fashion and because you didn’t accept Christ and you only had 1 chance (if there’s no reincarnation) to do it, now you’re going to burn and scream and cry in a pit of hell forever?
That while a foundation of The Christian faith from a neutral standpoint seems pretty demented frankly.
If one has ever seen (think Dennis Quaid was in it) A Dog’s Life, well, that movie didn’t seem like total fantasy when it comes to indirectly addressing the Reincarnation issue.
Thoughts?
I can assure you that the concept of Reincarnation is real.
I had a spiritual experience during my "death" when just a child, and God explained it all to me (Among many other things.) before returning me to life. Although He just explained the process and it wasn't until years later I found out that people already had a name for it - Reincarnation. Although the l-o-n-g process of never-ending life cycles is more complicated than just being "reborn" Reincarnated over and over.
post above is WRONG about Judaism.
what you are saying about Judaism is inaccurate.
Judaism has both reincarnation (Gilgulei HaNeshamot) AND resurrection of the dead (Olam HaTechiyah).
No, in Judaism they are NOT incompatible. they are both present. They are two entirely different concepts.
But Michael Way was talking about Christianity, NOT Judaism.
And having survived the Christian brainwashing, I can assure you they HATE the concept of Reincarnation. It goes against their fear mongering Heaven/"saved" verses Hell, brainwashing.
Reincarnation is predicated on the existence of a soul, but the concept of a soul was concocted by Greeks who --through no fault of their own -- were unaware of the existence of biological cells. In fact, no one knew of their existence until the year 1607.
Since the Greeks had no idea biological cells existed, they could not possibly have fathomed the idea that the brain consists of Billions of specialized cells interacting through chemistry which is what gives rise to consciousness.
Because the Greeks did not know that, the only way they could explain consciousness was by concocting the idea that we are inhabited by a soul.
Note that the concept of the soul is absent from all religious texts prior to that time, and, why, yes, that includes the Hebrew texts.
That only proves the point I often make that religions are invented by spiritually clueless MEN who only make up silly stuff to fool the mindless minion with.
And you really need to study up on ALL the different religions/spiritual beliefs thru-out the world before making such limited statements.
You can start by looking up the Egyptian "Ba" or "Ba Bird".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
